[JayCT]

Originally Posted by WouldLoveTo

Glad I posted it - I knew you'd have the right explanation! Thanks

So you know, I do not necessarily agree with this tax. I think it will make our state less attractive to home buyers. They are not stupid. They see it and may hesitate to buy here because of it. We certainly do not need that. Jay

[MrGompers]

Originally Posted by Fuele

Minimum wage earners are not " typical Connecticut" households.

Regardless of your contentions, the economic climate in CT may be a little tougher now for some citizens. The increases in property taxes are mostly the result of the state not providing money to cities and towns. This even after another billion in new state taxes , and record tax increases from Governor Malloy. It is not bashing CT to state that the consequences of CT taxation can be seen by the lowest economic growth , lowest wage growth and largest wealth/income gap in New England. We also are at the bottom in unemployment rate with RI. Seriously , looking at all of these factors, is the economic climate in CT acceptable ? Are the people leaving CT because they want to...or have to ?

If that report can not get the tax tables correct, why should anyone believe any thing else in the report ?


As for people leaving CT, I've been hearing that since 1985. I hope more people leave we are over crowded to begin with. I hope we can lose 1/3 of our population (approx 1.2 million people). Imagine what we will save on transportation projects alone.

[MrGompers]

Originally Posted by JayCT

So you know, I do not necessarily agree with this tax. I think it will make our state less attractive to home buyers. They are not stupid. They see it and may hesitate to buy here because of it. We certainly do not need that. Jay

Nothing to see here. Taxes are built into the price. The tax isn't going to prevent someone from buying.

[Fuele]

Originally Posted by MrGompers

If that report can not get the tax tables correct, why should anyone believe any thing else in the report ?


As for people leaving CT, I've been hearing that since 1985. I hope more people leave we are over crowded to begin with. I hope we can lose 1/3 of our population (approx 1.2 million people). Imagine what we will save on transportation projects alone.

You are challenging one aspect within the analysis , however it doesn’t change reality. The evidence is clear. We are at the bottom of New England States in several categories. That’s why it is to be believed.

[WouldLoveTo]

Originally Posted by MrGompers

As for people leaving CT, I've been hearing that since 1985. I hope more people leave we are over crowded to begin with. I hope we can lose 1/3 of our population (approx 1.2 million people). Imagine what we will save on transportation projects alone.

Agreed! I say that about the US in general, and the entire world actually. We have way too many people. Having sanctuary cities only makes it worse.

[JayCT]

Originally Posted by Fuele

You are challenging one aspect within the analysis , however it doesn’t change reality. The evidence is clear. We are at the bottom of New England States in several categories. That’s why it is to be believed.

BUT we are ahead of many states that people presume have better economies than we have. They are wrong.

You seem focused on other states and are hell bent on ignoring what we actually have. The facts clearly show our economy is doing very well. We may not be doing as well as other New England states that are doing super well but that does NOT mean we are not doing good. Makes me wonder. Jay

[BobNJ1960]

Originally Posted by Fuele

You are challenging one aspect within the analysis , however it doesn’t change reality. The evidence is clear. We are at the bottom of New England States in several categories. That’s why it is to be believed.

Correct, and even at that, New England, generally underperforms most of the nation.

We have a hostile business climate. It is the heart of the problem. Hence, Malloy's biggest win economically was an 1,800 job Amazon DC, and their working conditions are usually a horror show. Lamont is not off to a good start, either, and is also anti business.

[JayCT]

Originally Posted by BobNJ1960

Correct, and even at that, New England, generally underperforms most of the nation.

We have a hostile business climate. It is the heart of the problem. Hence, Malloy's biggest win economically was an 1,800 job Amazon DC, and their working conditions are usually a horror show. Lamont is not off to a good start, either, and is also anti business.

What? All of the New England states have unemployment rates under the national average, even Connecticut. I believe most have Real Gross Domestic Products higher than the national average. Our incomes are well above the national average too. How is that “underperforming”???

Where we tend to fall short is when you talk in relative terms like growth. New England is a very mature and one of the most densely populated parts of our country. There is little open land available for significant growth. What little open land we have left we are fierce about preserving. Of course we do not have massive growth when compared to less mature areas with a lot of open land to grow. We just don’t have the room to support that growth.

People need to stop assuming we are not doing well because we do not have significant growth. We are already at or near the top for economic performance and we do not need to have high growth to stay there. Jay

[BobNJ1960]

Originally Posted by JayCT

What? All of the New England states have unemployment rates under the national average, even Connecticut. :

Ct is ONE of 5 NE states to have Post Recession Job Growth far below USA, JayCt.

Low unemployment rates can come an unhealthy way- a reduced Workforce Labor Participation Rate. (Under Obama, the first term, it dropped many points amongst working age men. That lowers the unemployment rate, but not in a good way). Job GROWTH is the sole healthy way to have a solid economy.

Massachusetts deserves praise for being the sole NE state at least on par with US growth.

Other 5 have been horrible economically the last decade.

We need to compare ourselves to 49 other states, just as corps do when assessing where to add or build new plants and offices. Not just compare to the under-achievers in NE plus NY & NJ, also under-achievers in growth the last few decades.

[Fuele]

Originally Posted by JayCT

BUT we are ahead of many states that people presume have better economies than we have. They are wrong.

You seem focused on other states and are hell bent on ignoring what we actually have. The facts clearly show our economy is doing very well. We may not be doing as well as other New England states that are doing super well but that does NOT mean we are not doing good. Makes me wonder. Jay

None of what you have said changes the facts. Regardless of the perception of what " we have" , we indeed have less growth than other nearby states. Good or bad is an opinion. Each and every aspect of the particulars may be different. For example , Dairy Farmers were all over the state last week about losing money. The facts are we aren't doing as well as other New England States in certain categories. . That is 100% clear.